On Nature Of Accomplice

On the essence of joint crime, academic world of continental criminal law exists two opposite theories-- theory of criminal commonness and objective behavior commonness. These two theories draw very different conclusions in many ways. What constitute the entity of crime are illegality and responsibility, and joint crime is a kind of illegal form, an objective imputation joint crime, so, the "crime" with only illegal level of the significance of joint crime, shall also be taken the theory of behavior commonness. Namely joint crime is common implemented a criminal law index of the gal act, not common implementation specific crime. With behavior of establishing joint said joint crime theory, not only helps to solve such one-sided accomplice, accomplice and identity, inherits accomplice, the punishment according to traditional accomplice without specifying problem in the theory of criminal law, thoroughly implement the personal responsibility principle; But help judicial personnel solve the trouble them such as each actor had different jointly committing crime behavior, whether the establishment of joint crime or whether the establishment of joint Principal negligent crime such complex problems.This first part introduced many theories about accomplice, namely crime theory of common said, behavior common said, common meaning theme said. Due to the common meaning subject said will group responsibility onto individuals, obviously violates individual responsibility principle. So now, few people support this said, its basically quit accomplice the historical stage of essence theory. Now about the essence of joint crime, is conflict between theory of criminal common (including part crime with common said) and (objective socialist) theory of commonness of partial crime. Discusses the essence in accomplice scope, the first opinion think: this theory only belongs to joint principal problem, the second kind of view: this theory should belong to generalized accomplice (joint principal, instigator, help make). The author thinks that, from causal accomplice theory and crime control theory, the standpoint of the basic theory should belong to generalized accomplice.The second part discusses theory of criminal commonness, particularly the some defects of theory of commonness of partial crime and the reasons of avocation theory of behavior commonness.Because theory of criminal commonness, mixed with the elements of subjective responsibility of judging whether to set up a common crime, which confuse the establishment of an accomplice with the accomplice to the punishment. So just a joint crime is sure each actor's objective responsibility for the principle that determine whether for total prisoners, criminal commonness ,which in addition to consider behavior common besides, still must have the same crime intentionally ,is wrong. Although the theory of commonness of partial crime is a trend to replacing the criminal commonness, but the theory of the defects that are rarely addressed. Objectively speaking, the theory of commonness of partial crime that did some form of adjustment, just to cope with the defects of completely crime common said, essentially didn't get rid of completely the essential characteristics of criminal common said. Because the said in a logical argument contradiction, in violation of personal responsibility principle, inherits accomplice theory cannot self-explanatory, cannot complete solve complex accomplice question. In contrast, behavior common said think each actor behavior as common implemented the objective elements of illegal behavior that consistent with elements, and enforcement has contact with the general sense, may establish accomplice. Behavior criterion commonality is: if the actor's actions violated the law benefits, or the same invasion existing law benefits when crossing and overlap part, even objects, behavior, even if there are some differences in the provision of that crime constitution is different, also can regulate the offender is implementing that common behavior. Under the guidance of this theory, this part deep discusses the one-sided accomplice and accomplice compared with identity, and reinterprets the joint principal imputation of "part behavior, full responsibility". There is no "part behavior, full responsibility"; only "all behavior, all responsibility", "some behavior, part responsibility".The third part explains accomplice is an illegal type, and on this basis discusses the rationality of theory of behavior commonness. This is mainly from common crime and disrupts the judicial crime, joint crime of having the responsibility to skills and ability of irresponsibility, fact irrtumslehre, and principle of legality and principle of adapt punishment to prove its rationality.The fourth part discusses fault joint crime; fault joint crime is discussed topics. The debate has negative theory and positive theory at home and abroad. This part lists the reasons of negative theory and positive theory and comments to them, on this basis presented my views The author thinks that, since a joint crime is a kind of illegal form, in the judgment of whether established accomplice not join the deliberate content of responsibility elements. It's no reason to denying the establishment of fault joint crime. But the authors only admit fault joint principal, deny the establishment of fault instigator and fault help make. Last, I reviews two practical cases, draw a conclusion that it's very necessary to admit fault joint principal.